AHC: Make the Presidential Losers winners

[jpj1421]

In order.

Goldwater is near ASB levels. Civil Rights, post JFK assassination, up against JFK...

How are you going to calm the protesters? Their explicit goal was to get attention.

I think that the actual impact of the Chennault affair is strongly overblown. Thieu and his buddies knew that it was a bad deal from a lame duck President whose opposition was one of the most notorious red baiters in history, and no Chennault will not butterfly this-Thieu has literally every incentive to not go along with the bombing halt and the "peace plan". Furthermore, Johnson's bombing halt was pretty much optimally timed for electoral purposes as it was, so changing the date won't help. If Thieu was able to sabotage Johnson then, he would any other time.

Having no Wallace hurts Humphrey more than anything. Who else would they go for, assuming they vote at all?

I've already explained, here and elsewhere, why a McGovern victory is near ASB. You need TIME to try Liddy and Company.

Volcker's reforms still take place, leading to the economic boom, and the new "tougher" America is most approved of by the populace. The country had gone right. And arguably Reagan being killed will cause people to sympathize with the administration more than anything.

You will have to make Iran Contra a lot bigger. Reagan still left office pretty popular, and the GOP was now the dominant party.

Who would be the sex scandal? If it is pre-Lewinsky, it probably would have already taken him down. Clinton was pretty good at taking character abuse, don't forget.

I'll give you Gore.

Kerry just was not a very good politician. If he could not beat Bush II in OTL's circumstances, I'm a little cynical that he ever would. And there is no way, if Bush chokes on the pretzel post 9/11, that the USA would ever learn the truth about it, not for a while anyway. Same case I mentioned with Reagan unless Cheney managed to goof up everything severely-which he might.

Agree on McCain.

Hm... will that overcome the GOPs worsening reputation among the people?

I think Goldwater's best chance is getting a Cabinet spot with a Republican administration and then a nuclear bomb wiping out the Capital BUilding during the State of the Union while Goldwater is elsewhere.

With calming the protesters, I was thinking RFK could use his odd charisma to speak to those outside the convention or just put a stronger leash on Daley. And I was thinking if everything else goes right for LBJ's administration Wallace might do less damage then he barely managed in 68. I did think Keys to the White House may have jumped the gun in turning that key against the Democrats.

Yeah, no I agree with you if things really went that bad for Nixon anyone else would be the nominee in 72. Maybe if Nixon was revealed to be a murderer to close to the election for his name to be removed from the ballot.

Yeah, both of the scenarios in 84 and 88 require basically everything to come up Democratic, which entails a Republican Civil War and I can only see that with Reagan out of the way or Iran Contra turning out worse.

Lewinksy and Clinton were dating as early as 95, so have a picture or something come out during the sweet spot of the campaign before Clinton can bring out the charm or the Republicans can blow it up.

And as for Kerry and Romney, I just kind of laid down the minimum requirement to overcome their deficiencies. I honestly don't know how well that would work for them. Probably not great.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Humphrey have him do the Salt Lake City speech earlier or delay his cancer and have him win the 1976 nomination
Bob Dole have him win the nomination in 1988.
Gore different ballot design in Palm Beach County
My favorite Kerry wins scenario is to have a massive hurricane hit New Orleans in August 2004. Kerry's victory means McCain wins in 2008.

 

[SinghKing]

IYHO, where would you place Herbert Hoover on that list (in the 1932 election)?

 

[Mr.Progressive]

No one has been able to put then all in one timeline. I really want to do a TLIAD

 

[Realpolitik]

I think Goldwater's best chance is getting a Cabinet spot with a Republican administration and then a nuclear bomb wiping out the Capital BUilding during the State of the Union while Goldwater is elsewhere.

With calming the protesters, I was thinking RFK could use his odd charisma to speak to those outside the convention or just put a stronger leash on Daley. And I was thinking if everything else goes right for LBJ's administration Wallace might do less damage then he barely managed in 68. I did think Keys to the White House may have jumped the gun in turning that key against the Democrats.

Yeah, no I agree with you if things really went that bad for Nixon anyone else would be the nominee in 72. Maybe if Nixon was revealed to be a murderer to close to the election for his name to be removed from the ballot.

Yeah, both of the scenarios in 84 and 88 require basically everything to come up Democratic, which entails a Republican Civil War and I can only see that with Reagan out of the way or Iran Contra turning out worse.

Lewinksy and Clinton were dating as early as 95, so have a picture or something come out during the sweet spot of the campaign before Clinton can bring out the charm or the Republicans can blow it up.

And as for Kerry and Romney, I just kind of laid down the minimum requirement to overcome their deficiencies. I honestly don't know how well that would work for them. Probably not great.

I disagree on 1968. The Yippies were not the type to go for that, and furthermore, the hippies as a whole support McCarthy, who hated RFK. RFK's position is vaguely committed to ending the war, ruling out McGovernite withdrawal as well as Reaganite escalation-that will not satisfy the "kids", and Kennedy is not dumb enough to risk losing other support for them. RFK's speeches can work well with minorities, but not the SDS, especially given his previous role in Vietnam. Furthermore, Daley is not going to listen to RFK, because RFK will probably not get the nomination, and Daley is about as rational about the hippies as they are about him. Lyndon Johnson will never allow any chance at an RFK Presidency while he is in office and has anything to say about it, and that's just the first reason. Chicago will probably be uglier, not calmer, with RFK around, because he and Lyndon Johnson will tear apart the party. The big winner from an RFK lives scenario is RMN.

The alienated white working class and South will not be persuaded into going for the Democrats that year, no matter what. I frankly find it hard to see a Wallace candidacy being avoided-someone had to represent them, right?

But wouldn't the Democrats be able to paint it as innuendo surrounding the President, especially giving the class of '94 and their attacks on Clinton? Granted, someone had to vote them in on 1996... you might be right, but I don't know if it's enough to get Dole to beat Clinton, especially with a healthy economy and general sense of optimism about the USA.

Kerry and Romney just aren't strong candidates, really. It says a lot when they both lose to an incumbent who isn't exactly popular.

 

[jpj1421]

I disagree on 1968. The Yippies were not the type to go for that, and furthermore, the hippies as a whole support McCarthy, who hated RFK. RFK's position is vaguely committed to ending the war, ruling out McGovernite withdrawal as well as Reaganite escalation-that will not satisfy the "kids", and Kennedy is not dumb enough to risk losing other support for them. RFK's speeches can work well with minorities, but not the SDS, especially given his previous role in Vietnam. Furthermore, Daley is not going to listen to RFK, because RFK will probably not get the nomination. Lyndon Johnson will never allow it, and that's just the first reason. Chicago will probably be uglier, not calmer, with RFK around, because he and Lyndon Johnson will tear apart the party. The big winner from an RFK lives scenario is RMN.

But wouldn't the Democrats be able to paint it as innuendo surrounding the President, especially giving the class of '94 and their attacks on Clinton? Granted, someone had to vote them in on 1996... you might be right, but I don't know if it's enough to get Dole to beat Clinton, especially with a healthy economy and general sense of optimism about the USA.

The alienated white working class and South will not be persuaded into going for the Democrats that year, no matter what.

Kerry and Romney just aren't strong candidates, really. It says a lot when they both lose to an incumbent who isn't exactly popular.

I suppose I'm just in an optimistic mood, as I make my way through RogueBeaver's The Impossible Dream. I don't quite buy RFK could take the nomination, but I was extrapolating out his calming presence after MLK's death to Chicago. Really, the Democrats' best hope, and Humphrey's, is to have McCarthy whiff in New Hampshire. LBJ sticks it out and all of the other Democrats get out of his way, looking to come back in 72. With a unified, if grumpy party, then LBJ just has to pull a foreign policy or somehow societal calming rabbit out of his hat and the inertia of a unified party with a good economy carries the day. And then he dies and Humphrey gets to be President.

 

[Realpolitik]

I suppose I'm just in an optimistic mood, as I make my way through RogueBeaver's The Impossible Dream. I don't quite buy RFK could take the nomination, but I was extrapolating out his calming presence after MLK's death to Chicago. Really, the Democrats' best hope, and Humphrey's, is to have McCarthy whiff in New Hampshire. LBJ sticks it out and all of the other Democrats get out of his way, looking to come back in 72. With a unified, if grumpy party, then LBJ just has to pull a foreign policy or somehow societal calming rabbit out of his hat and the inertia of a unified party with a good economy carries the day. And then he dies and Humphrey gets to be President.

I know, but I really tend to think the RFK would have won scenario in 1968 is one of those instances when people tend to confuse their dreams with reality. RFK has a hard time with the nomination, let alone the election, for a host of reasons. Most crucially, LBJ will make any efforts to slit his throat.

I actually weirdly enough think Humphrey was the worst opponent for Nixon. He has the approval of LBJ and the cigar chompers without being Johnson himself.

The only hope for LBJ is for him to noticeably improve the Vietnam situation, and he has no political credibility left on the issue and is a lame duck at any rate. Wallace would probably get even more support from alienated working class white Democrats in the North, especially since Chicago will be VERY ugly. Johnson and his policies are not popular in 1968. He is a far more ruthless and wily man than Humphrey, granted-I'm sure that Johnson vs Nixon would be up there in dirtiest races in history. But Nixon could really hammer Johnson like Reagan did Carter-we could see a 60s Nixonian version of "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" That will really invigorate the "Silent Majority". Furthermore, Nguyen van Thieu was a very clever judge of American politics most of the time. He has long since decided whom he favors in the election, and if Johnson wants to pull a rabbit out of the hat at his expense, he'll bust it.

1969-1972 was, in a really weird way, just made for Nixon.

 

[jpj1421]

IYHO, where would you place Herbert Hoover on that list (in the 1932 election)?

For Hoover to win, he needs to be a better politician in getting the nation to buy that his programs are working. He'd basically need a personality transplant.

I know, but I really tend to think the RFK would have won scenario in 1968 is one of those instances when people tend to confuse their dreams with reality. RFK has a hard time with the nomination, let alone the election, for a host of reasons. Most crucially, LBJ will make any efforts to slit his throat.

I actually weirdly enough think Humphrey was the worst opponent for Nixon. He has the approval of LBJ and the cigar chompers without being Johnson himself.

The only hope for LBJ is for him to noticeably improve the Vietnam situation, and he has no political credibility left on the issue and is a lame duck at any rate. Wallace would probably get even more support from alienated working class white Democrats in the North, especially since Chicago will be VERY ugly. Johnson and his policies are not popular in 1968. He is a far more ruthless and wily man than Humphrey, granted-I'm sure that Johnson vs Nixon would be up there in dirtiest races in history. But Nixon could really hammer Johnson like Reagan did Carter-we could see a 60s Nixonian version of "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" That will really invigorate the "Silent Majority". Furthermore, Nguyen van Thieu was a very clever judge of American politics most of the time. He has long since decided whom he favors in the election, and if Johnson wants to pull a rabbit out of the hat at his expense, he'll bust it.

1969-1972 was, in a really weird way, just made for Nixon.

I don't know if it that bad for LBJ. For middle America they were probably better off than four years previously, the economy was kicking along just fine. It's really one of the few elections I can think of that was lost on foreign policy, and more on the perception of a failed policy. Really, maybe if the guy who came up with the Tet Offensive died of a heart attack so that while North Vietnam was stronger, but didn't get the morale boost, than LBJ may have been able to concentrate on some big foreign policy win like a treaty with the Soviets or some such. I wish RFK could win it, and think he's the second best option, but I think LBJ could have won it if he was willing to get into the dirt.

No one has been able to put then all in one timeline. I really want to do a TLIAD

Now I can make all of them President, but to have them actually win an election, I'll have to think about that. Goldwater is hard no matter the universe.

 

[Realpolitik]

I don't know if it that bad for LBJ. For middle America they were probably better off than four years previously, the economy was kicking along just fine. It's really one of the few elections I can think of that was lost on foreign policy, and more on the perception of a failed policy. Really, maybe if the guy who came up with the Tet Offensive died of a heart attack so that while North Vietnam was stronger, but didn't get the morale boost, than LBJ may have been able to concentrate on some big foreign policy win like a treaty with the Soviets or some such. I wish RFK could win it, and think he's the second best option, but I think LBJ could have won it if he was willing to get into the dirt.

But they are seeing riots day after day on television, there is cultural resentment against the perceived "laxness" of Johnson on law and order/hippies, and it generally feels like America is decaying and the world is being inverted. 1968 was an insane year. And as I've stated before, the hippies would probably be a lot worse if Johnson himself were running. The riots and the anarchy feeling are blamed on Johnson and the Democrats. Nixon and Wallace didn't get their appeal based on the economy.

The "guys" (plural-it was the idea of the militant, pro-Chinese faction in the party) who thought of the idea of a general offensive had thought of it a year earlier, when the military was deadlocked and bombing was taking an effect, and they had just taken control of the Party after the 1967 crackdown/purges. That's a lot of heart attacks. More important is the perception in the USA, and that's what could help Johnson. But his years of lying about Vietnam have taken their toll.

LBJ did not take naturally to foreign policy, a big foreign policy treaty would take time and would probably need to be in secret, given the 60s, and it's extremely doubtful that the Soviets would want to sign anything with him in 1968 until it is too late, in the aftermath of the Prague Spring and with him being a visible lame duck. Dobrynin's account of the lame duck Johnson attempting to create a summit is insightful. And there is no way that this can distract from Vietnam and the societal chaos at home. There is a reason Nixon had to wait until 71-72 to get started on what he really wanted to do.

Johnson has a guaranteed nomination if he wants it, unlike RFK, but that doesn't mean he is favored to beat Nixon by any means.

 

[jpj1421]

But they are seeing riots day after day on television, there is cultural resentment against the perceived "laxness" of Johnson on law and order/hippies, and it generally feels like America is decaying and the world is being inverted. 1968 was an insane year. And as I've stated before, the hippies would probably be a lot worse if Johnson himself were running.

The "guys" (plural-it was the idea of the militant, pro-Chinese faction in the party) who thought of the idea of a general offensive had thought of it a year earlier, when the military was deadlocked and bombing was taking an affect, and they had just taken control of the Party after the 1967 crackdown/purges. That's a lot of heart attacks. More important is the perception in the USA, and that's what could help Johnson.

LBJ did not take naturally to foreign policy, a big foreign policy treaty would take time and would probably need to be in secret, given the 60s, and it's extremely doubtful that the Soviets would want to sign anything with him in 1968, in the aftermath of the Prague Spring and with him being a visible lame duck. Dobrynin's account of the lame duck Johnson attempting to create a summit is insightful. And there is no way that this can distract from Vietnam and the societal chaos at home. There is a reason Nixon had to wait until 71-72 to get started on what he really wanted to do.

Johnson has more of a chance than RFK, but that doesn't mean he is favored to beat Nixon at any means.

Yeah, yeah, I acknowledge that it's hard. I do think a Vietnam peace summit might be an easier sell if LBJ is running for re-election, but that's kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. After reading the Keys to the White House I just like thinking about how to flip the other keys for winning the Presidency to the other party. In most cases it requires everything to break correctly for the party I'd want to win and I was merely presenting the best shot for the Democrats.

Anyway, following the Shuffling the Deck model I can sort of see a line of Presidents, but I don't quite know if I have the details in mind. I think the event in mind, if we're strictly looking at Presidential losers, is have FDR go the route of Wilson (a stroke in late 43 or early 44) preventing him running in 44. Dewey is the obvious first choice, with maybe Al Gore or Romney rounding out the end.

 

[Realpolitik]

Yeah, yeah, I acknowledge that it's hard. I do think a Vietnam peace summit might be an easier sell if LBJ is running for re-election, but that's kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. After reading the Keys to the White House I just like thinking about how to flip the other keys for winning the Presidency to the other party. In most cases it requires everything to break correctly for the party I'd want to win and I was merely presenting the best shot for the Democrats.

Anyway, following the Shuffling the Deck model I can sort of see a line of Presidents, but I don't quite know if I have the details in mind. I think the event in mind, if we're strictly looking at Presidential losers, is have FDR go the route of Wilson (a stroke in late 43 or early 44) preventing him running in 44. Dewey is the obvious first choice, with maybe Al Gore or Romney rounding out the end.

Ah, OK. Sorry. I'm glad we agree.

The summit is irrelevant if Saigon doesn't go. And they won't. Also, I wonder how much the North Vietnamese would be willing to help out a man whom they've been fighting for years-they need to agree to the peace conditions for the first place. I think they would to avoid Nixon-his reputation was well known in the Communist world by this point-but just throwing that out there.

I do think that Johnson is not reaching the near ASB levels of RFK. I'm just trying to stress that it's tough, and it's going to require a POD before election season at least, and chances are before 1968. I'll say this though-I would pay TOP DOLLAR to see Landslide Lyndon take on Tricky Dick. The political ads and cheap shots and dirty tricks are going to be stunning in their vituosity and lack of morality.

 

[Fubart Solman]

I do think that Johnson is not reaching the near ASB levels of RFK. I'm just trying to stress that it's tough, and it's going to require a POD before election season at least, and chances are before 1968. I'll say this though-I would pay TOP DOLLAR to see Landslide Lyndon take on Tricky Dick. The political ads and cheap shots and dirty tricks are going to be stunning in their vituosity and lack of morality.

Walter Cronkite: "... And today, I am sad to report that voter turnout has reached an all time high of 107%. However, all of this has been for naught because both President Lyndon Johnson and Former Vice President Richard Nixon received 269 votes in the electoral college. And that's the way it is on November 5th, 1968."

 

[Maeglin]

From 2012 back to 1964:

Romney: Have the global financial crisis take place in 2009, 2010 or 2011, not 2008.

McCain: No global financial crisis in 2008, and an incumbent who isn't utterly loathed by the population (more successful Iraq War, no Hurricane Katrina).

Kerry: Better campaign would probably do the trick (explaining is losing, John).

Gore: Different Florida recount strategy.

Dole: Clinton's 1993 budget never passes, economic recovery is delayed, Republicans don't overplay their hand in 1994. No Ross Perot probably helps too.

Bush Senior: No Ross Perot, have the break-up of the Soviet Union delayed by a year so foreign affairs is considered all-important.

Dukakis: Better campaign. It's hard to contemplate a worse campaign than the one he ran in OTL.

Mondale: Delayed economic recovery, no Geraldine Ferraro, Reagan stumbles badly in all the debates.

Carter: Hostage rescue is successful, no TV debates.

Ford: No pardon of Nixon, no "there is no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe" stumble.

McGovern: This is the first one I think is actually impossible. Have Wallace run, have Eagleton hit by a bus, have McGovern have someone like Walter Cronkite as his VP, have the Convention competently organised, have McGovern run on his war record, and have the Nixon-Agnew stuff get more attention earlier. Sadly, I think Nixon still wins, but the above would at least make it competitive.

Humphrey: Nixon's dealings in the Vietnam Peace Talks come out in October. Failing that, no Vietnam.

Goldwater: The most ASB of the lot. Johnson could be found with a dead girl, a live boy, and an underage llama on the White House lawn, and he'd still win.

 

[Realpolitik]

From 2012 back to 1964:

Romney: Have the global financial crisis take place in 2009, 2010 or 2011, not 2008.

McCain: No global financial crisis in 2008, and an incumbent who isn't utterly loathed by the population (more successful Iraq War, no Hurricane Katrina).

Kerry: Better campaign would probably do the trick (explaining is losing, John).

Gore: Different Florida recount strategy.

Dole: Clinton's 1993 budget never passes, economic recovery is delayed, Republicans don't overplay their hand in 1994. No Ross Perot probably helps too.

Bush Senior: No Ross Perot, have the break-up of the Soviet Union delayed by a year so foreign affairs is considered all-important.

Dukakis: Better campaign. It's hard to contemplate a worse campaign than the one he ran in OTL.

Mondale: Delayed economic recovery, no Geraldine Ferraro, Reagan stumbles badly in all the debates.

Carter: Hostage rescue is successful, no TV debates.

Ford: No pardon of Nixon, no "there is no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe" stumble.

McGovern: This is the first one I think is actually impossible. Have Wallace run, have Eagleton hit by a bus, have McGovern have someone like Walter Cronkite as his VP, have the Convention competently organised, have McGovern run on his war record, and have the Nixon-Agnew stuff get more attention earlier. Sadly, I think Nixon still wins, but the above would at least make it competitive.

Humphrey: Nixon's dealings in the Vietnam Peace Talks come out in October. Failing that, no Vietnam.

Goldwater: The most ASB of the lot. Johnson could be found with a dead girl, a live boy, and an underage llama on the White House lawn, and he'd still win.

I see the point to most of them. But some quibbling...

Bush Senior:

He needs to run a tighter campaign as well.

Dukakis:

I'm not sure that's going to be enough, post-Reagan. Iran-Contra being bigger might help.

Carter:

He's still in for a rough time with the economy and general lack of happiness with him. Reagan is arguably the most appealing candidate possible in that time period for the populace as a whole. I think that crucial to this is Carter running a slicker campaign in conjunction with that. Maybe he could make much out of successfully getting the hostages back and imply that Reagan is too brash/dumb to do such a thing?

Ford:

A trial of Nixon is guaranteed to still be going on in 1976 and can only hurt Ford. The economy sucks, people remember Watergate, and there is voter fatigue and alienation against Kissinger style foreign policy. Hard to see how the Democrats can't win this. Even without Watergate, they could still win.

McGovern:

I personally don't see how running on his war record will do any good, given that in order to get the nomination from the new ideologues in the party, he needs to display his peacenik credentials. Furthermore, Cronkite is not going to win any Nixon voters over. And I've already explained why Watergate is not going to be looked into earlier. I'm not sure Agnew's stuff would be looked into without Watergate. McGovern wins a couple more states at best.

Humphrey:

Johnson is never going to release the information for a whole bunch of reasons, the most direct and obvious being that he got the information illegally. Among other things, the info is also far from a smoking gun on Nixon, things could easily backfire electorally if he tries to play that card, and it's also very, very late in the game when he figures it out-a couple days before the election. Those are just a few of the reasons.

No Vietnam might mean that Johnson runs for reelection instead-it depends on his health.

Goldwater:

Yep. Though I personally think McGovern is just as ASB.

 

[Realpolitik]

Walter Cronkite: "... And today, I am sad to report that voter turnout has reached an all time high of 107%. However, all of this has been for naught because both President Lyndon Johnson and Former Vice President Richard Nixon received 269 votes in the electoral college. And that's the way it is on November 5th, 1968."

*Cuts to a "Daisy" ad on steroids, implying that Nixon is mentally unstable and will leave the people to rot in poverty, asking "What has Dick Nixon done for you? The white-collar Wallace? Medicare? Well, under Johnson...", followed by a Nixon commercial displaying gratuitous riots/violence/Vietnam with a backdrop of Johnson saying that victory is around the corner, implying that Johnson is a liar who is uncaring about the people, and asking "Four more years of this, America?"

These two are as politically hardcore as it gets. Nothing will be off limits, including as you implied, shameless levels of voter fraud. I respect LBJ and Nixon and think they were arguably two of the most brilliant minds we've had in the White House, but I would not trust either further than I could throw them.

 

[Maeglin]

I think a McGovern victory is more plausible than a Goldwater one if only because with McGovern there are so many obvious things to fix. Even fixing all of them probably wouldn't have been enough, but at least there is visible room for improvement.

Goldwater on the other hand is utterly hopeless. The one thing that would have made him less toxic in the North (voting for Civil Rights) would have screwed him in the one place he had any support in OTL.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I wrote an ASB TL about President Goldwater. I read that Nixon testified before the Senate Committee that drafted the 25th Amendment. He suggested that the Electoral College be reconvened to choose the new Vice President. If he got his way and Nixon nominated Goldwater as Vice President in 1973. a majority of the 517 Republican electors would have voted for Goldwater. There are two things that I know would be different from the Ford Presidency and Goldwater Presidency. I read that Ford gave Goldwater a courtesy phone call to tell him he was going to pardon Nixon. He responded with anger. So probably no Nixon pardon. I heard Goldwater in a tv interview say if he were President in 1975, He would have sent the Air Force to make a swamp out of North Vietnam. So there would have been a reinvolvement in the Vietnam, At least for 90 days until the War Powers Act requirements kick in.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

McGovern: This is the first one I think is actually impossible. Have Wallace run, have Eagleton hit by a bus, have McGovern have someone like Walter Cronkite as his VP,
During my recent McGovern TL. I quoted Walter Cronkite saying that people want him to run for office because they don't know what he believes. Once people found out what he believes he would lost support.

 

[Don Draper]

Goldwater winning in 64 is ASB, but if he hadn't run that year and been tarnished by that defeat, he could have led the ascendant conservative wing of the GOP the way Reagan did and possibly won at a later date (though he wouldn't have the charisma and charm to take the edge off of his right wing policies the way Reagan did).